Johannes Wessel Greeff v Body Corporate of Merriman Court and Others

Mr Greeff owned section 1 of the Merriman Court sectional title scheme in Green Point, Cape Town, an 88m² flat with exclusive use of a garden area. Unlike other owners who had extended their units, Mr Greeff had not yet extended his. In 2007, he obtained 'in principle' approval from the Body Corporate to build a garage. At the 2013 AGM, his wife requested permission to extend their unit, which was unanimously approved subject to plan approval by the Body Corporate and local authority. In April 2017, Mr Greeff presented building plans to the Body Corporate. The scheduled 2017 AGM did not proceed due to resignation of the Managing Agent, so an informal meeting was held where the plans were 'formally accepted' by the Body Corporate. The minutes of this informal meeting were adopted at the postponed AGM held on 7 December 2017. Mr Greeff did not implement the 2017 plans but instead instructed an architect to revise the plans in 2019, proposing a double-storey extension onto common property. At various meetings in 2019, other owners raised concerns about the extent of encroachment into common property, missing information, and irregularities in procedures. The respondent owners objected to the plans and refused to vote at the 19 October 2019 Special General Meeting, requiring further information. Mr Greeff then approached the high court for declaratory and interdictory relief.

• Whether the approval at the informal meeting in 2017 constituted valid authorization for extension of a sectional title unit under section 5(1)(h) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011 (STSMA) and section 24 of the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (STA)
• Whether the adoption of minutes of the informal meeting constituted ratification of a special resolution to approve the extension
• Whether the Body Corporate complied with procedural requirements under section 6(3) of the STSMA and rule 15(6) of the Management Rules
• Whether Mr Greeff established the requirements for declaratory relief and final interdict
• Whether extension of a sectional title unit into common property constitutes alienation of common property requiring unanimous approval under section 5(1)(a) of the STSMA
• Whether the Body Corporate had locus standi and whether there was a conflict of interest in appointing attorneys to defend the application

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The full court's order setting aside the high court's grant of declaratory and interdictory relief was upheld.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Extension of a sectional title unit under section 5(1)(h) of the STSMA requires: (a) an application by the owner; (b) a special resolution passed by the owners; and (c) compliance with procedural requirements including proper notice under section 6(3) of the STSMA and rule 15(6) of the Management Rules. (2) Decisions taken at informal meetings that do not comply with statutory procedures do not constitute valid approval for extensions of sectional title units, regardless of the historical informal management practices of the body corporate. (3) The adoption of minutes of a meeting only confirms that the minutes accurately reflect what was discussed at that meeting. It does not constitute ratification of resolutions taken at that meeting unless the requirements for ratification are met. (4) For declaratory relief to be granted, the applicant must establish a clear right. For interdictory relief, the applicant must establish a clear right, actual or reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence of alternative remedy. (5) A body corporate has a duty under section 3 of the STSMA to act in the best interests of all members and to manage common property for the benefit of all owners, which requires compliance with legislative prescripts. (6) Extension of a sectional title unit by erecting buildings on common property does not constitute alienation of common property requiring unanimous approval under section 5(1)(a) of the STSMA (following Body Corporate of San Sydney v Singh).

The Court observed that: (1) The Body Corporate was willing to give Mr Greeff a reasonable opportunity to extend his unit since he was the only owner who had not yet done so, but this willingness did not mean his plans would not be subjected to scrutiny or that other members could not raise objections before final acceptance. (2) Mr Greeff did not explain why he had not addressed the concerns raised by the owners, nor did he show he had obtained the necessary special resolution approval. It was incumbent on him to address the concerns and approach the Body Corporate to reconsider his responses. (3) Commercial and legal documents, including minutes of meetings, must be interpreted contextually and purposively, giving words their ordinary grammatical meaning unless to do so would result in absurdity, and statutory provisions should always be interpreted purposively and properly contextualised (applying Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Natal Joint Municipality Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality). (4) Regarding the Rule 7 notice challenging the authority of attorneys to represent the Body Corporate based on a R15,000 limit on legal costs: there was no conflict of interest when trustees appointed attorneys because the decision was approved by the general meeting where all members were present or represented, and the Body Corporate had substantial and material interest and locus standi in the litigation.

This case clarifies the procedural and substantive requirements for extension of sectional title units under the Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 and the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act 8 of 2011. It establishes that: (1) Informal decisions taken at meetings that do not comply with statutory procedures cannot constitute valid approval for extensions of sectional title units, even where a sectional title scheme has historically managed its affairs informally. (2) Adoption of minutes of an informal meeting does not constitute ratification of a special resolution - adoption merely confirms that minutes accurately reflect what was discussed. (3) Body corporates have a duty under section 3 of the STSMA to act in the best interests of all members and to control, manage and administer common property for the benefit of all owners. This duty requires compliance with legislative prescripts. (4) For an owner to extend a sectional title unit under section 5(1)(h) of the STSMA and section 24 of the STA, there must be: (a) an application by the owner; (b) a special resolution passed by the owners; and (c) proper notice and compliance with procedural requirements under section 6(3) of the STSMA. (5) The case also confirms the principle established in Body Corporate of San Sydney v Singh that extension of a scheme by erection of buildings on common property does not constitute alienation of common property requiring unanimous approval under section 5(1)(a) of the STSMA, though it may affect participation quotas. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper procedures and substantive compliance with statutory requirements in sectional title governance, and limits the ability of owners to rely on informal historical practices to circumvent legislative prescripts.